Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Lakshmana Naicker Alias ... vs Jayaram Naicker And Ors. on 4 September, 1933
The decision in Nagendran v. Lakshmi 38 L.W. 169 : 65 M.L.J. 198 has no application to the facts of this case, as the dispute was between two mortgagee-decree-holders and it was not brought to the notice of the single Judge of this Court while the decision was rendered in Rajagopala Naicker v. Jayarama Naicker and Anr. 1974 T.L.N.J. 435.
M.N. Nagendran Chettiar vs Lakshmi Ammal on 18 January, 1933
The decision in Nagendran v. Lakshmi 38 L.W. 169 : 65 M.L.J. 198 has no application to the facts of this case, as the dispute was between two mortgagee-decree-holders and it was not brought to the notice of the single Judge of this Court while the decision was rendered in Rajagopala Naicker v. Jayarama Naicker and Anr. 1974 T.L.N.J. 435.
S. Subba Rao vs Mangavalli Venkataseshacharlu And ... on 14 November, 1947
Held, that A, having purchased the property pendente lite, must be treated as a representative in interest of the judgment debtor and, therefore, a petition by the mortgagee decree holder for possession of the property purchased by him was maintainable against A.
The said decision also is applicable on all fours to the facts of this case. In view of the ratio in the decisions cited above, I am of the view that the money decree-holder being the representative in interest of the judgment debtor is bound by the mortgage decree and that he had purchased only the right of redemption of the mortgage debt.
Samarendra Nath Sinha & Anr vs Krishna Kumar Nag on 1 November, 1966
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the decision in Samarendra Nath Singh v. Krishna Kumar wherein it was held that Section 52 T.P. Act does not strictly apply to involuntary alienations like court sales, but principle of lis pendens applies to such alienations.
Kuldip Singh vs Krishna Kumar And Ors. on 25 January, 1973
In Jayarama Mudaliar v. Ayyasami their Lordships approved the decision in Samanandrenath Singh v. Krishna Kumar , where it was held:
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1